Who wins with a coin toss when both sides are blank?
We often talk about the flip-side of the coin. In Thursday’s NY Times editorial, the Times editors, like many people ignoring the flip-side of one particular coin, lamented the civilian lives lost in drone attacks in the Middle East. The two sides of the coin—at least, in recent experience—are drone and special forces versus “boots on the ground,” lots of boots! The Times editors either suffered a lobotomy, or, like many pacifist activists with blinders on, have forgotten the perils of massive invasions and nation building. Many more innocents were killed in both Afghanistan and Iraq when the massive U.S. war machine was launched against terrorists, a small minority hidden among a much larger majority.
Like many people, I think war is hell and would like to see the end of it, but, with respect to terrorism, we didn’t start it…and we have to finish it! The real choice—and I don’t have a coin for this—is to decide whether we’re going to practice Old Testament policies or New Testament ones. The problem is that the terrorists don’t give a rat’s ass which one we choose. If we turn the other cheek, they’ll lop off our heads. They’ll do that too if we fight—as long as there are terrorists left breathing. I remember—do you?—an interview where a reporter asks a grinning and dentally challenged Taliban if the fanatic would kill him if he suddenly found himself free. Remember what the Taliban said? That sounds like it should be in a fighting song to the tune of Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit”—we should always remember what that Taliban said! Off with his head, he said!
I know I can’t be New Testament with respect to jihadists—no way in hell. I will not turn the other cheek. We are at war and it’s a war for the survival of civilization as we know it. Do I lament the casualties of innocent civilians? Sure, I do. That’s exactly why I support the use of drones and special forces. In many ways, using our massive military might is like cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. Even if it’s a spoiled nut, filled with worms and maggots (the appropriate metaphor for deranged jihadists), the sledgehammer is too big and unwieldy.
Statistics are all too often biased. I’ve yet to see evidence that the “innocent civilians” weren’t somehow associated with terrorists. (And, when I say “evidence,” I don’t mean cobbled up hearsay numbers from pacifist white papers with obvious agendas.) But let’s suppose, in the “fog of war,” there are some “innocent civilian” casualties. That doesn’t change the fact that the numbers of innocent civilian fatalities are minimized when we use drones or special forces. Moreover, the macho jihadist culture still uses women and children, hospitals, and orphanages as shields in their sick attempts to turn public opinion in their favor. And activists and others here in the U.S., including NY Times editors, are playing right into their hands. I’ll make a suggestion to the turn-the-cheek crowd: if you love the terrorists so damn much, go try to live with them! Your other cheek will have to turn as your infidel head falls off the chopping block. Remember what the Taliban said!
I have no problem living in other cultures and have admired diversity in both this country and abroad. My Sibundoy indigenous friends, the chief and his son, even came to visit me in my apartment in Bogotá. I met them in their native lands through some Colombian anthropologists I was friendly with. They didn’t particularly like what the white man had done to them in Colombia (I wouldn’t either, if I were them), but they’re smarter than many white men—they know violence begets more violence. That’s what happened with 9/11. The problem with terrorism is that we can’t unilaterally stop the violence and make it go away—it won’t. It keeps coming at us. As long as Western culture endures, the jihadists will be after us, an alien mentality far more dangerous than anything you’ll see in the new movie Ender’s Game, but equally crazy-violent in pursuing its real goal of universal domination and destruction of Western civilization.
9/11! Talk about loss of innocent life! Every fatality, either then or in subsequent years due to many illnesses caused by that disaster, represents an innocent civilian. This is the definition of terrorism—attack the innocents as the primary target. The italics indicate the difference between the jihadists and us—innocents aren’t our primary target. This is a big difference! “Murder is murder,” you say? No, we have another name for what we do. It’s called self-defense. How can activists be so blind that they can’t see this? I don’t think they’re stupid. How can they forget 9/11? The jihadists’ goal in life is to kill innocents and create terror in the survivors—the parallel between them and rabid dogs is jusitfied. Our policy in the Middle East, with drones and special forces, is to go after these diseased mentalities before they can strike, either in massive attacks like 9/11 or ones like what occurred during the Boston Marathon—or pay them back for past transgressions.
Even if we eliminate the side of the coin corresponding to massive invasions, the other side of the coin is not blank—it’s our only choice, in fact, if we are to survive. Massive invasions of countries where terrorists are hiding aren’t the way to protect our own innocents. Given that we have to do something, drones and special forces are. And we must do something. A massive attack like 9/11 might never happen again, but something like the Kenyan mall massacre will. Coming soon to a mall near you! We have to go after the diseased mentalities who plan these terrorist attacks—now, before it’s too late. Remember what the Taliban said!
And so it goes….
[If you enjoyed this post, support this blog: buy, read, and review some of my books.]
